Is Islam compatible with The Constitution?

​As we have explained here, it is not only common sense, but also historically relevant that if any so called “religion” does not respect the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution then that religion does not get the protection of The Constitution. In other words, the religion has delegitimized itself from The Constitution and any rights that come from The Constitution.

What we will show below is that Islam does not respect the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution; therefore, Islam has delegitimized itself from The Constitution and any rights that come from The Constitution.

In summary, the argument goes something like this:

P1: All religions protected by the Constitution are religions that are compatible with the Constitution; more specifically, religions that respect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--these are fundamental rights that cannot be taken away by any religion.

P2: If any so called “religion” does not respect the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution then that religion does not get the protection of the Constitution. In other words, the religion has delegitimized itself from The Constitution and any rights that come from The Constitution.

Conclusion: Therefore, Islam has delegitimized itself from The Constitution and any rights that come from The Constitution.

​​Premise 3 is based on the prescriptions from the Quran itself, the Hadith, and Sharia Law that does not recognize our fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution. Women do not share the same rights as men, infidels (unbelievers) do not share the same rights as Muslims, and apostates do not even have the right to live according to the Quran. There are 13 countries in the world where becoming an atheist is punishable by death. All 13 countries are Islamic. Keep in mind Sharia Law is derived from Islam's 3 sources of authority (The Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith). Put simply, Sharia Law is inextricably connected to Islam, and any Muslim that doesn’t admit this is either ignorant of his own religion, or is practicing what is known as taqiyya (deceiving the enemy by hiding your faith/intentions).

Furthermore, actions speak louder than words. The response from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to states who have tried to pass bills outlawing “foreign law” from being enforced in state courts is very telling. As a large Islamic Council that is supposed to represent/speak for many Muslim Americans, CAIR had an opportunity to distance themselves from the barbaric form of Islamic law known as Sharia by standing with the states and saying, "we support American principles of freedom, State's rights and state/Constitutional law and we do not want to see any Islamic law you might see in other parts of the world practiced here in the United States." This would have shown their allegiance to American values and principles over the barbaric practices and penalties we see in every Islamic country in the world. But that's not how CAIR responded. On the contrary, CAIR criticized the laws as “anti-Sharia,” saying it marginalizes Muslims and prevents them from enjoying equal protections under the law and equal access to the court. (Read that last sentence again to let it really sink in) If CAIR is criticizing a law for being "anti-Sharia", then that means CAIR must (implicitly) be "pro-Sharia." Why else would they be against a law that would prevent Sharia law? This is basic logic and reason.

​Ihsan Bagby of CAIR's Washington office has said that Muslims "can never be full citizens of [the United States] because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country." What Ihsan Bagby was essentially saying was that a Muslim can only be "American" in the technical sense of where they reside (quietly and patiently waiting for their numbers to increase before they can bring America under Islamic submission). However, if you are using the term as an insinuation of shared American ideals of "All men are created equal (i.e. what undergirds our Civil Rights)", then you are using the term in the most oxymoronic way. This would be like describing someone as a "Christian Satan worshipper".

To the Muslim that adheres to the Koran, an American (that subscribes to our ideals of freedom and equality) is an "INFIDEL". Therefore, a "Muslim American" (that supposedly shares our ideals of freedom) is actually a "Muslim Infidel" (an oxymoron). The only way it is possible for a Muslim to be an American in the patriotic (shared ideals of freedom and equality) sense of the term is if the Muslim is not an adherent to the Koran, but a heretic.

CAIR (along with universities who espouse relativism, political elites, and the media who are all committed to political correctness) will demonize those who are wary of Islam as being guilty of "Islamophobia." Phobias are an IRRATIONAL fear of something, but Bagby's candor, and the way CAIR responded to laws that could be "anti-Sharia" showed that those who are wary of Islam are not being irrational at all; in fact, those who are "Islamophobic" are being extremely RATIONAL. For those who still don't agree let's see what CAIR thought was worth protecting the possibility of practicing here in the United States. According to Sharia Law:

•Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.•Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.•Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.•A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.•A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.•A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.•A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.•Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad‘s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).•A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.•A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.•A man can beat his wife for insubordination.•Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.•A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).• A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.•A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).•A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.

So yes, any reasonable, freedom-loving American would agree the laws being passed to "outlaw foreign law" from being enforced in state courts were and should be "anti-Sharia." Our Constitution is "anti-Sharia!" The principles that our society, our laws, our institutions, and our education was built upon are all "anti-Sharia." And this is why Islam, and its inextricably bound law of Sharia is incompatible with the Constitution. It shouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out; although it literally took a brain surgeon (Ben Carson) to be the first presidential candidate in our post-modern, politically correct culture to point out that Islam is incompatible with the Constitution. Many in the West ignore the obvious and refuse to admit this incompatibility. If you are wondering why, we have explained the philosophical force behind this Twilight Zone head-burying here.

Some people claim this argument is trying to produce a litmus test for “religion” that even Christianity would fail. This is just shallow and lazy reasoning. All one has to do when looking at a religion is look at the moral hero that religion produces. The moral hero of Christianity is Jesus. Not only is Jesus compatible with The Constitution, it is His life and teachings that influenced the framing of our Constitution, and the principles that framed our country.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying theChristian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

"One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations."Joseph Story, father of American jurisprudence and U.S. Supreme Court Justice

"Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin.Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary."Daniel Webster

Lastly, John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States wrote his views on Islam and compared its teachings to Christianity. That is, he knew Islam was not compatible with the Constitution:

“The natural hatred of the Mussulmen [Muslim] towards the infidels is in accordance with the precepts of the Koran. [..]

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. [...]

In the 7th century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab … spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth...He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion...The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust, to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.”